Rajasthan Court July 1959 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lachhmi NaraIn and anr. Vs. Kalyan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-31-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj1
Bhandari, J. 1. This is a Civil Second Appeal in a suit for redemption. The main point involved in this appeal is whether the limited right of mortgagee can be acquired by adverse possession. There is an unreported Division Bench case of this Court in Sarwan Lal v. Gangadhar, Second Appeal No. 220 of 1949, decided on the 12th October, 1955, in which it was held that such right can be acquired by adverse possession, but there is another Division Bench case of this Court in Hansia v. Bakhtawarmal, ILR (1958) 8 Raj 126: (AIR 1958 Raj 102), in which it has been held that such right cannot be acquired by adverse possession. When this appeal came up for hearing before one of us sitting as a single Judge, it was referred to a Division Bench, in view of the conflict of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court. Eventually, this Special Bench was constituted for deciding the appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated thus. On 7th October, 1949, the plaintiffs...
Qurabali and ors. Vs. Government of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-28-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj152
Modi, J. 1. This is a writ application by Quarabali, Bhinvraj and Nemichand under Article 226 of the Constitution by which it is prayed that respondents Nos. 4 to 19 who have been lately elected as members of the Pali Municipality and respondents Nos. 20 and 21 who have been nominated by the Government thereto be restrained from functioning as members of the said municipality and that fresh elections be ordered to be held in accordance with law. 2. The facts which have led to the present application may be shortly stated as follows : A general election was held for the Pali municipality on the 3rd and 4th April, 1949, Respondents Nos. 4 to 19 are the successful candidates thereat who have been declared to be members of the municipality, and their names have been notified in the State Gazette. Respondents Nos. 20 and 21 appear thereafter to have been nominated as members of the said municipality. Of the petitioners, the first two are the defeated candidates, Quarabali having, offered hi...
Ali Mohammed Vs. Sabdar Ali and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-24-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj85
K.L. Bapna, J. 1. In this case a decree for possession of half share in the suit property was given by the learned District Judge, Udaipur in favour of the plaintiff's respondents. The appellant Ali Mohammed filed an appeal against the said decree. The respondents Sabdar Ali and Mohammed Hussain filed cross-objections. The value of the property was Rs. 5,000/-. On the date of the institution of the suit, i.e. 29-4-1944, the Mewar Court-fees Act was in force. The Rajasthan Court-fees Act came into force on 25-1-1950. 2. The plaintiffs filed cross-objection on the court-fee of Rs. 104/11/-, calculated in a valuation of Rs. 2,500/- according to the Mewar Court-fees Act. The office reported that the court-fees should have been paid according to the Rajasthan Act which was in force on the date of the filing of the cross-objection and that this amounted to Rs. 150/-.3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the right of appeal was a vested right and accrued on the date of the inst...
The State Vs. Balchand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-23-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj101; 1960CriLJ520
Jagat Narayan, J. 1. Bal Chand respondent was tried of charges under Sections 302, 326 and 380 I. P. C. for having committed the murder of one Nath Mal in his shop at village Sadri at about 3 p. m. on 19-9-55, for biting of a portion of his wife's nose on the same day inside his own house, and for stealing the dagger Ex. 7 with which the murder was committed from the shop of one Kundan Mal Kharnia on the same day. Bal Chand admitted having killed the deceased at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution, but pleaded that his case was covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the version of the occurrence put forward by him and convicted him only under Section 304 (part I) I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. He also convicted him under Section 335 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302 and 380 I. P. C. The S...
Bal Mukand S/O NaraIn Shankerji Vs. the State
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jul-13-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Raj80; 1960CriLJ517
ORDERK.L. Bapna, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioner Bal Mukand was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Ajmer under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code on 17-10-1958 and sentenced to six months' R. I. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aimer on 6-6-1959 and the revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 11-6-1959. The present petition was submitted on 25-6-1959 and is a petition in revision under cover of Section 561-A Cr. P. C., praying for granting a re-hearing of the case.3. It may be mentioned that the earlier criminal revision was argued by Mr. Chandmal, a senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner and the order of this Court is in the following words:'This is an application by the petitioner Bal Mukand. I have gone through the judgments by both the courts and find that the case against the petitioner is proved beyond any manner of doubt. There is no good reason whatsoever for inter...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›